BULLSHIT! Just saying that he once may have commented the universe "looks" designed is misleading. (Misleading? Big surprise.) Here is a 3-minute comment by Leonard Susskind himself, disputing the notion of "Intelligent Design" in full context. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8 As usual, you're operating just outside the periphery of accuracy, drawing entirely false conclusions from sources you call your own. What else you got?
I knew this stuff was over your head. Try listening to the video instead of reading the headline. Listen to the last part of the video. He said at the very end of the video -- the universe in which we live looks intelligently designed. Get it.... the only universe we know looks in intelligently designed. The rest of the those universes or as he calls them landscapes - are pure speculation - they can not be proven. Which is why he said in the other quote that if his speculation of almost infinite other universes is proven in correct - then we will be hardpressed to counter those who argue intelligent design. Don't you get how fucking obvious this is to smart people. The worlds top physicists.... know the universe looks designed. So in order to combat the inference of designer they have dreamed up an almost infinite amount of failed universes. Therefore -- you can't argue for a designer. Because one of the universe was likely to work since there are an almost infinite amount of them.
You can believe whatever pleases you, but your interpretation of Susskind's video is pathologically delusional. Try this 58-minute video where Susskind talks for about 30 minutes about the illusion of Intelligent Design, followed by a question-and-answer period: http://fora.tv/2007/01/24/Cosmic_Landscape#chapter_05
Actually, the above link begins about 8 or so minutes into Dr. Susskind's talk. To begin at the beginning, go to this link: http://fora.tv/2007/01/24/Cosmic_Landscape#chapter_00
Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design â I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. I believe the universe was designed the same way the incredible human being was designed. It certainly looks - and before Darwin it looked like some designer must have....what else could possibly account for the complexity of a human being, the human brain and so forth, and we eventually found out what it was. It was random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff for that mutation to work on, and a little bit of everything evolved. Some things did better than others. Those things are more populous than the things that didn't do well and so it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. I think the same is true of the universe. oh incidentally, in the process of designing us, it also designed a hell of a lot of stuff not nearly as intelligent as we are in fact most of the stuff out there is not intelligent. And so it wasn't that there was an upward trend that just naturally led to intelligence, there was just, everything happened. Everything that could happen happened. Some of it's still happening. That seems to be the way, or at least according to one version of cosmology, and it's by now the most popular version of cosmology, is the universe is exceedingly big, just like the bush or the tree of life, it has many different environments. So many different environments that a very small fraction of them are capable of supporting life and that small fraction of them happens to be the small fraction that 'looks' [Susskindâs emphasis] as if it were intelligently designed. Incidentally it's the only fraction we can exist in which to ask the question. So that's my view of it other people have different views. â To anyone who watches the vid , listens to or reads what he says objectively, it is perfectly clear and obvious Susskind says and clearly states .... 'I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence......" he explains.. it 'looks' as if it were intelligently designed... but is isn't. It's "random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff ...." In grasping at straws in an over zealous religious intent, you are a delusional wreck jem and you've supplied the very evidence yourself to prove it
"it 'looks' as if it were intelligently designed... but is isn't. It's "random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff ...." Susskind believes this, but he does not know it to be true... He has his faith, which me may hold as strongly as every other scientists over time has held their beliefs... All of this has nothing to do with observable fact though, as it purely speculation which cannot be verified by any scientific test. Saying how something "could have happened if ____ and then ____ and then ____ " without proof that it did happen is not scientific fact. It is just a guess... Ask any physicist or biologist what is the statistical probability that God designed the universe versus an unprogrammed universe. They can provide no answer.
"it 'looks' as if it were intelligently designed... but is isn't. It's "random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff ...." Susskind believes this, but he does not know it to be true... He has his faith, which me may hold as strongly as every other scientists over time has held their beliefs... All of this has nothing to do with observable fact though, as it purely speculation which cannot be verified by any scientific test. Saying how something "could have happened if ____ and then ____ and then ____ " without proof that it did happen in the manner they speculate is not scientific fact. It is just a guess... Ask any physicist or biologist what is the statistical probability that God designed the universe versus an unprogrammed universe. They can provide no answer. Scientific opinion is not science, it is the opinion of scientists, just as the opinions of religious leaders is not the word of God..
Scientific opinion, which is at the forefront of learning and based on the most considered and thorough assessment of the available evidence, such as it is, carries more credence than the opinions of religious leaders, which are based on hearsay and say-so. I hardly think they carry equal weight for anyone seeking knowledge as compared to, say, comfort.
Hi Anna, How's everything going? Hope all is well. I read the book around '07 while taking his class on Fuzzy Logic. If I recall correctly, I don't believe he delves into the mind, body and soul relationship too much. Your assessment of black/white and gray is fairly accurate. The main concept being that there exist many "truth" levels between 0 and 1 that can be used to explain not only statistical behavior, but, also natural behavior. The neuron is a concrete example - neurons are not only easily reproducible in the strict logical sense using fuzzy logic, but, scientists are also able to reproduce them in the biological sense using electrochemical stimulation (this is old news BTW). In fact, the mystery behind brain/thought function is not in the logical/biological function, it exists in the decoding function. Much like the human genome, serious computational power is required to decode the multitude of brain activity. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10080852-76.html All that said, Kosko is one of the biggest egomaniacs I have ever met. A very tough and effective teacher, but a total freakin' egomaniac. Mike P.S. I bring all this up because the uniformed posters in this thread do not even know this stuff is happening. If you do not keep up with scientific advances (per certain posters on this board) then you just DON'T HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION - and, you come off kind of .... well, slllloooooowwwwwww and just generally uneducated, i.e. you hurt your cause